Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Comparison of breast percent density estimation from raw versus processed digital mammograms
Author(s): Diane Li; Sara Gavenonis; Emily Conant; Despina Kontos
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

We compared breast percent density (PD%) measures obtained from raw and post-processed digital mammographic (DM) images. Bilateral raw and post-processed medio-lateral oblique (MLO) images from 81 screening studies were retrospectively analyzed. Image acquisition was performed with a GE Healthcare DS full-field DM system. Image post-processing was performed using the PremiumViewTM algorithm (GE Healthcare). Area-based breast PD% was estimated by a radiologist using a semi-automated image thresholding technique (Cumulus, Univ. Toronto). Comparison of breast PD% between raw and post-processed DM images was performed using the Pearson correlation (r), linear regression, and Student's t-test. Intra-reader variability was assessed with a repeat read on the same data-set. Our results show that breast PD% measurements from raw and post-processed DM images have a high correlation (r=0.98, R2=0.95, p<0.001). Paired t-test comparison of breast PD% between the raw and the post-processed images showed a statistically significant difference equal to 1.2% (p = 0.006). Our results suggest that the relatively small magnitude of the absolute difference in PD% between raw and post-processed DM images is unlikely to be clinically significant in breast cancer risk stratification. Therefore, it may be feasible to use post-processed DM images for breast PD% estimation in clinical settings. Since most breast imaging clinics routinely use and store only the post-processed DM images, breast PD% estimation from post-processed data may accelerate the integration of breast density in breast cancer risk assessment models used in clinical practice.

Paper Details

Date Published: 8 March 2011
PDF: 6 pages
Proc. SPIE 7963, Medical Imaging 2011: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, 79631X (8 March 2011); doi: 10.1117/12.878886
Show Author Affiliations
Diane Li, The Univ. of Pennsylvania Health System (United States)
Sara Gavenonis, The Univ. of Pennsylvania Health System (United States)
Emily Conant, The Univ. of Pennsylvania Health System (United States)
Despina Kontos, The Univ. of Pennsylvania Health System (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 7963:
Medical Imaging 2011: Computer-Aided Diagnosis
Ronald M. Summers; Bram van Ginneken, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top